Wednesday, July 12, 2006

A Good Day for House of Commons

Today is a good day for Parliament. Now I never thought I would say these two things in the same sentence, or indeed ever, but congratulations to Nick Clegg for applying for an emergency debate on the Nat West Three and congratulations to The Speaker for granting it. This is exactly the kind of thing which should be debated in Parliament, but in the last few years rarely has been. Let's hope the various speakers in the debate rise to the occasion and tell it how it is. This extradition arrangement is unfair, discriminatory and unreciprocated. Even at this stage it would be possible for the Home Secretary to intervene and halt tomorrow's extradition. If he did, perhaps he would go some way to repairing his increasingly damaged reputation. But I'm not holding my breath.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why didn't DD apply for this debate? Clegg is getting far more publicity for exposing Home Office failings

Anonymous said...

Ditto! Not only that, but I'm even more worried about the low-key response from Dave Cameron to this and many other important issues, while he meanders about flying his kite on green issues (like fixing a wind turbine on his roof) and hugging hoodies. I think this is all going to end in tears!

Anonymous said...

See, part of me wonders if Reid would use this debate as a reason for his "Change of heart", knowing full well what he would be doing is sticking two fingers up to the Blair/Bush Love-in

Yet at the same time here is Reid's Dichotomy - to stick two fingers up at Blair over this one means protecting the rights of three middle class and very rich city types - the very stereotype that stereotypical "Old Labour" wanted to see hung drawn and quartered at every opportunity....


Going back to Bush/Blair dom/sub relationship, it's funny, how people used to portray Thatcher/Regan's "special relationship" in the 80s as being one way.... shurely this is one aspect where Our Tone has "bettered" Mrs T and become the personal doormat/loveslave of both the current and previous US President?

Anonymous said...

I think Parliament spends quite enough time debating the rights of criminals thank you. These people will be deported and I just don't care. I feel sorry for their alleged victims. Is anyone seriously suggesting these people won't get a fair trial? In which case just let the Americans get on with it.

sparked said...

Probably because he didn't think Gorbals Mick would grant it. He has only ever granted an S.O. 24 emergency debate once before, to do with Afghanistan in 2001.

Anonymous said...

Malcolm - isn't the reason that DD isn't shouting about this that the Conservatives supported the legislation in the first instance? Similar to why they can't shout about Iraq - it focuses attention on u-turn.

James Graham (Quaequam Blog!) said...

"Why didn't DD apply for this debate?"

Probably because he voted for it in the first place.

Anonymous said...

The thing that really sticks out in this debate is how little reaction there was from the media of the right to previous "auto-deportations" to the US, for example in the cases of anyone vaguely black or muslim, but what a fine old lathering hysteria they've all gotten into now it's some nice public school chaps. (not that any of them are nice - ever met a banker?) So sorry old chap, you have to jolly well get on that plane like the rest of the scum when our Masters in Washington Demand It. "Mummy, mummy, I can't go, I won't even a teddy bear in that nast prison". Shuttup Piers and Jeremy! You have to go there like the rest of us and face the music. It's the chain gang for you - and big fat black men in sweaty prisons!

Iain Dale said...

Now hang on a cotton pickin minute. Do not let Tabman and James mislead you. Yes, the Conservatives did vote for this but on the clear assurance from the Government that it would only be used for terrorist suspects and only when the agreement had been ratified by the US. And it's the Conservatives who have been running with this in the Lords. I know for a fact David Davis is as outraged by what has happened as Nick Clegg. Did you not read his feature article on it in the Daily Telegraph last week?

strapworld said...

If you were David Davies would you want to give any credence to the present Tory party by applying for the debate?
I think DC is still way up the Enid Blyton Faraway Tree and his end is nigh! The Country (i.e. The Conservative Party out here in the real world) do NOT like him and want traditional Tory values...hang em flog em..certainly not hug em!

Yak40 said...

The treaty should have been ratified by both governments prior to any action being taken it. So I agree about those concerns. However some are acting as though these guys are as pure as the driven snow when a look at the indictments suggests something very fishy went on.
Maybe the Home Office is kicking it over the fence given their record in trying such complicated cases.

Francis Walsingham said...

Seen the news? Someone reported to be a witness in this case found hanged in Waltham Forest.

Any other info?

Anonymous said...

I did read it Iain and I do not question DDs motives.I do question his tactical acumen however,this campaign against extradition increasingly looks like it is being led by Ming and Clegg rather than the Conservative party.We could and should be leading the debate.

Paul Evans said...

Why should you be leading it? You voted for the damn treaty, so are probably a bit embaressed. I think it’s quite right and understandable that the Lib Dems are taking the initiative on this.

Anonymous said...

How vicious some people are! These men are not guilty of anything Mr Oakeshott (and the man whose name you have appropriated would be horrified to be associated with such sentiments as you express)

This is a matter that affects us all one way or another and is about justice and liberty. It is far more distressing for someone who has led a pampered life and never been in a fight in his life to be sent to prison than someone who is accustomed to looking aftre himself with his fists and is a stranger to luxury. A just sentence should take this into account otherwise it is just some kind of class hatred based vengence. Punishment without love is neither legitimate nor effective.

Did nobody read Cardinal Richelieu's words written on the blog yesterday

'If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged'

Watch out all you extraditers, hangers and floggers that Uncle Sam doesn't decide to come for you some day on some pretext that he won't even tell you about beforehand and your own state won't lift a finger to help you.

And so what if others have been extradited with nothing being said? It was wrong then and is wrong now; it's not a reason to do nothing about it. Mr Oakeshott seems never to have any lessons in reasoning.

Anonymous said...

"Opposition defend crooked banking chums but let Muslims be shipped to Gitmo" - no, I think we should let Ming wriggle on that particular Guardian headline all by himself, frankly.

(And I rather think the hanging part of the dead witness story has been denied by the Police. It's all getting a trifle Da Vinci Code...)

sparked said...

For some reason the House has adjourned after the 3-hour debate on Extradition, despite a Tory opposition day debate being down for debate afterwards. What a waste of parliamentary time.

Anonymous said...

Philip Walling...businessmen should be sent to prison for less time because they have lead pampered lives and are not used to prison? A real vote winner that(!). They are going to be queueing up for this one(!).

I did not in fact say these men had committed a crime. Indeed the Americans have said no such thing. They are being sought for trial. But yes I stand by my statement, I do not think more Parliamentary time should be wasted debating criminals rights. These men have been sought by an allied government for trial. My understanding is that the US would not have needed to have invoked the new law, because the case against them is so overwhelming. I don't suggesting staking whatever shred remains of Dave's credibility on them.

The choice is quite simple. If we believe the US judicial system does not give men a fair trial, then withhold them. I suggest this would be lunacy, and very dangerous for our influence over our greatest ally. Or we send them. My understanding is that they will be on the plane tomorrow morning and will be granted bail. I hope they are extradited as soon as possible.

Paul Evans said...

Of course, Ming Campbell has never mentioned Gitmo has he Bentley? Not repeatedly brought it up in PMQs or anything like that. How silly of me…

Paul Evans said...

I’m really looking forward to all those NORAID lads who bank-rolled Irish terrorism being banged up over here. I’m sure the US will have no qualms about immediately ratifying the treaty and letting British authorise trawl the bars of Boston for them.

Anyone tried saying reciprocity after a couple of pints?

Anonymous said...

Why on earth would we seek to extradite Irish terrorists when we are letting them out in their hundreds over here? For a holiday? Let them see round Buckingham Palace, Marble Arch and no.10, then send them back at the (enormous) expense of the taxpayer. When will people realise that this country stopped fighting the IRA years ago...it is called capitulation, though the unionists thankfully proved to tougher than Blair and his allies Adams and McGuiness thought. Good.

Anonymous said...

To Michael Oakeshott - I share your sentiments - you might enjoy this article:

http://www.mayorwatch.org.uk/news.php?article_id=290

Which followed a Times report that Tony Blair's Government has been lobbying the Bush Administration to drop a ban which prohibits the Sinn Fein leadership fundraising in the US.

Anonymous said...

With the shocking news this evening of the death in London of a witness in the Enron case, I have to draw parallels to the death of Dr David Kelly. This witness was allegedly "hounded by the FBI" according to Sky News and I have to ask how a foreign police authority is able to act in this country in a way in which a witness can be driven to taking his own life. If all of this is true (and we must wait to see the outcome) then there must be questions asked about the manner of interrogation and indeed, who gave permission for the FBI to persue this line of enquiry within the jurisdiction of the UK.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the Conservatives did vote for this but on the clear assurance from the Government that it would only be used for terrorist suspects and only when the agreement had been ratified by the US.

Well that was pretty naive, wasn't it? What matters is the law that goes on the statute book, not the worthless assurances the Government gives in order to fool people into voting for it. Liberals understand this: Conservatives are like Charlie Brown imagining that this time Lucy won't whip the football away.

Anonymous said...

Iam extremely upset at what l perceive to be the height of injustice.Is it that what is good for the goose is no longer good for the gander? Is this another form of imperialism? would this ever happen the other way round?

Anonymous said...

l write further to my previous comment above i.e goose and gander.I'm still incensed at the same time l'm trying to be objective.If the UK ratified the treaty and the USA did not, does it not simply mean there is no agreement? Did UK have any justification in handing the men over while the treaty is still one-sided and when to begin with it was not intended for cases of this nature.(As the facts before me suggests)it might help to change the word fraud in this case to terrorism:-)it would lend more credence to the the case wouldnt it! Since we are making so much noise about single currency,may l humbly submit that we do not not need the euro,the dollar would do! After all we have relinquished our sovereignty by becoming the 51st state of the USA!Did l ever hear the USA denounce communism? Or is it imperialism? Whatever happened to USA's maxim "equality for all people..."?